MA S TER 
NEGA  TIVE 
NO .  92  -80498 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  —  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


FOSTER,  FREDERICK  M. 


TITLE: 


DIVISIONS  IN  THE  PLAYS 
OF  PLAUTUS... 

PLACE: 

[IOWA  CITY] 

DA  TE : 

[1913] 


COLUMDIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  if 


DIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARCFT 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


OKS/PROD   Gooks 

FIN  ID  CA3XRJ:.33?35  p. 
f 

ID:NYCQ92-B99;8 


rUL/BI8    NYCG92~B9978  Acqu  isi  tl  onr: 

-  Recof  (J  1  of  1  '  Record  added  today 


NYCG-PT 


CC:9665 
CP:  iaij 
PC:s 

MMD: 

0  [  f  I 


BL 


0  1 0 

050 

051 

1.00 

245  lA 

260 


0 


J 


300 
600 
600 
LUG 


1.0 
20 


PD 
OR 


ani 

1913/ 
POl 


DCF:? 

INf: 


RFYP 
CSC 
QPC 

REP 


ST:p 
MOD: 
310; 
CPI:0 


DM 


RR 


FRN: 

SNR: 

FIC:0 

F3I:0 

COL: 


1  7  7  7  '■ .  -r  r 

NHCf:cNNC 

PA6585t-l;.r6  1913a 

rCCopy  2, 

r  o "^.l.ev  ,    r  r  e d e  r  i 

The  divisions 

[Iowa  Cit:y,[.-19i3  1 

'^2  \',^c2A    r:ni. 

Plautus,    I  i  fjjo   Macciij-: 

fer  ence. 

RLIN 

02-11-92 


MS:    EL 
ATC 
CON 
ILC 
EML 


AD: 
UD: 

II 

GEN 


02-11-92 
02-11-92 


0 


BSE 


k  Mom tague,{:d  18  78- 
in  the  plays  ot  Piautus  and  Terenceth[  microf  orfri 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM     SIZE: Z^l?>L^;i^„  REDUCTION     RATIO: 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA   QiA     IB     IIB  .-        ^. 

DATE     FILMED:„i^^D__l;^JClQl INITI  ALS^^jt^twX^ 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  VVOODBRIDGE,  CT 


\\  ^ 


1 

r 

Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


111) 


Centimeter 

1         23456789       10 

iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliniliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilllllllll 

i|ii|M|iyi|iyi|iui|iyi{M|M|ii|ii|ii|iyiii,ii|ii|ii|i|  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I 
12  3  4 

1.0 


n        12       13       14       15    mm 

liiiiliinli 


iiiiiiiiimnii 


Inches 


I.I 


1.25 


■^  ill— 

5.0      '""^^ 

""       3.2 


15. 
|« 

■  71 

■  «0 


3.6 
4.0 


1.4 


2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


|"h"''|")'|"h"|";' 


MPNUFfiCTURED  TO  fillM  STRNDfiRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMRGE,     INC. 


BULLETIN  OF  THE  STATE  UNIVERSITY  OF  IOWA 


NEW  SERIES  NO.  61 


MAY  24,  1913 

V 


STUDIES 


IN 


LANGUAGE  AND  LITERATURE 


VOLUME  I 


NUMBER  3 


CONTENTS 

The  divisions  in  the  plays  of  PUutus  and  Terence 

F.  M.  Foster 


ISSUED  TWrSTY-ONK  TIMKS  DUBINQ  THE  ACADEMIC  YEAR,  MONTHLY  FROM  OCTOBER  TO 

JANUARY,  WEEKLY  FROM   FEBRUARY  TO  JUNE.      ENTERED  AT  THE  POST 

OFFirE   IN   IOWA  OITY  AS  SECOND  ClJ^SS   MAIL  MATTER 


IN   THE   SERIES    OF    RESEARCH    BULLETINS    OF   THE    UNIVERSITY 


STUDIES 


IN 


LANGUAGE  AND  LITERATURE 


Volume  I 


Number  3 


I.    r 


CONTENTS 
The  divisions  in  the  plays  of  Plautus  and  Terence 

F.   M.    FOSTKB 


THE  DIVISIONS  IN  THE  PLAYS  OF  PLAUTUS 

AND  TERENCE 


The  plays  of  Plautus,  as  they  appear  in  the  manuscripts,  are 
rigidly  divided  into  five  acts  each,  and  each  act  is  divided  into 
one  or  more  scenes.  It  is  not  known  just  when  this  division  was 
made,  and  one  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  show  that  the  tra- 
ditional division  was  not  made  by  Plautus.  Such  a  division  is 
undeniably  useful  from  the  modern  point  of  view  for  the  breaks 
in  the  play  are  utilized  by  scene-shifters,  but  in  the  time  of 
Plautus  the  play  had  to  be  presented  as  a  continuous  whole  ^ 
for  otherwise  the  spectators  would  think  that  the  play  had  come 
to  an  end  and  would  leave  the  theatre.  Plautus  however  did 
make  certain  divisions  in  his  plays,  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  locate 
the  division  points  according  to  criteria  which  will  be  shown  to 
exist  in  the  plays  themselves. 

There  are  many  reasons  for  believing  that  the  traditional 
division  into  acts  and  scenes  was  not  made  by  Plautus.  If  these 
reasons  are  valid  we  ought  to  reject  this  division,  and  then  en- 
deavor to  see  where  the  original  divisions  existed;  if  we  con- 
clude that  it  was  necessary  for  the  plays  to  have  some  sort  of 
dividing  points.  We  may  first  consider  the  division  into  scenes. 
Various  arguments  have  been  advanced  against  the  traditional 
division,  chief  among  which  are  the  statement  by  Leo^  that  it 
is  a  nuisance  to  the  reader,  and  that  by  West^  that  it  is  merely 
a  device  to  show  the  entrance  and  exit  of  actors.  West  has  ad- 
duced no  proof  in  support  of  his  position  and  so  it  may  be  well 
to  examine  this  subject  in  some  detail.  In  the  first  place  we 
have  no  reason  to  believe  that  Plautus  himself  made  a  division 
into  scenes,  because  no  such  division  exists  in  Greek  comedy 
either  Old  or  New,  and  therefore  Plautus  had  no  model  to  fol- 
low in  this  respect.     He  however  recognized  the  necessity  of 

•  Wessner,  Donatus,  praef.  Eun.  p.  266. 

•  Plaut.  Forsch.  p.  13,  n.  3. 

•  Terence,  And.  and  Heaut.  p.  XXVI. 


4  Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 

providing  some  means  to  indicate  the  entrance  and  exit  of  ac- 
tors, and  so  he  naturally  chose  the  same  means  which  Menander 
and  Aristophanes  had  used  before  him ;  that  is,  the  employment 
of  statements  by  the  actors  themselves  to  indicate  departure 
from  or  entrance  onto  the  stage.  At  these  places  in  the  play 
we  now  have  the  division  into  scenes  which  is  nothing  more 
than  a  list  of  the  names  of  those  characters  who  are  about  to 
participate  in  the  action.  These  lists  are  noticeably  incorrect 
for  they  not  only  frequently  omit  the  names  of  characters  who 
were  on  the  stage,  but  also  they  do  not  consistently  occur  where 
we  have  reason  to  expect  them.*  The  statements  made  by  the 
actors  are  such  as  these:  to  indicate  departure,  iho  intro  or  eo  ad 
forum;  to  indicate  entrance,  eccum  video  or  fores  crepuerunt. 
Since,  then,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Plautus  knew  any- 
thing about  scene-division,  and  since  the  text  contains  state- 
ments which  are  sufficient  to  show  the  entrance  and  exit  of 
actors,  we  appear  to  be  justified  in  rejecting  the  traditional  divi- 
sion into  scenes. 

There  now  remains  for  consideration  the  division  into  acts. 
As  the  plays  exist  in  the  manuscripts  they  each  have  five  acts, 
and  the  natural  assumption  is  that  at  each  of  these  divisions  the 
stage  is  vacant,  the  plot  has  reached  a  decisive  point  in  its  de- 
velopment, and  there  is  general  preparation  for  the  next  act. 
Passing  by  the  suspicion  that  such  regularity  of  division  is  some- 
what alarming  in  a  production  naturally  so  free  and  untram- 
meled  as  was  early  Latin  comedy,  we  find  upon  examining  the 
different  act  ends  that  the  three  assumptions  above  mentioned 
have  no  basis  in  fact.  There  are  many  divisions  made  when  the 
stage  is  not  vacant,  and,  in  addition,  there  are  many  breaks 
which  do  not  coincide  with  breaks  incident  to  the  development 
of  the  plot.  A  further  reason  for  suspecting  a  formal  quin- 
quepartite  division  is  the  fact  that  no  such  division  existed  in 
Greek  comedy.  We  are  therefore  justified  in  rejecting  the  tra- 
ditional act-division  also. 

Was  it  necessary  for  Plautus  to  make  any  sort  of  division 
when  writing  his  plays?  The  structure  of  a  play  which  has 
any  plot  at  all  requires  at  least  three  parts:  (1)  the  develop- 
ment of  the  situation;  (2)  the  living  under  the  situation;   (3) 

*  cf.  Rudens  688-885. 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence  5 

the  resolution  of  the  difficulties  which  have  arisen.  These  divi- 
sions should  be  marked  off  from  each  other  with  at  least  a  fair 
degree  of  clearness.  If  we  add  a  prologue  and  an  epilogue,  we 
arrive  at  a  five-part  division,  but  parts  are  not  necessarily  iden- 
tical with  acts.  We  find  in  Aristophanes  great  freedom  in  the 
number  of  the  episodes  which  occur  after  the  prologue,  and  the 
number  of  divisions  in  one  of  his  comedies  may  even 
go  as  high  as  eight.  We  may  therefore  conclude  that  a 
comedy  contained  as  many  divisions  as  were  occasioned  by  the 
necessities  of  the  situation  which  developed  in  the  construction 
of  the  play. 

In  order  to  discuss  intelligently  the  divisions  in  the  plays  of 
Plautus,  we  must  endeavor  to  formulate  for  ourselves  the  influ- 
ences under  which  he  wrote.  One  of  the  most  potent  of  these 
influences  was  Greek  comedy. 

In  the  plays  of  Aristophanes  there  are  three  main  parts :  pro- 
logue, episodes,  and  exodus;  in  addition  the  plays  may  have  a 
parodos  and  a  parahasis.  The  prologue  may  be  regarded  as  a 
complete  whole,  but  each  episode  forms  a  division  by  itself  with 
choral  songs  marking  them  off,  and  there  may  be  from  four 
to  six  of  these  episodes.  Regarding  the  exodus  as  a  division, 
we  may  have  eight  divisions  separated  from  each  other  by  choral 
songs.  Other  signs  apart  from  the  chorus  indicate  such  separa- 
tion. At  the  times  when  the  chorus  absorbed  the  attention  of 
the  audience,  e.  g.  in  the  parodos  and  parahasis,  the  actors  left  the 
stage,  and  so,  disregarding  the  chorus,  there  was  no  one  left 
to  occupy  the  stage.  Vacant  stage  thus  assumes  great  import- 
ance as  a  criterion  for  the  indication  of  a  break  between  divi- 
sions, and,  as  we  have  seen,  the  actors  usually  announce  their 
departure  definitely,  and  so  we  have  little  difficulty  in  ascer- 
taining when  the  stage  was  empty.  Furthermore,  the  identity 
of  the  character  who  was  to  open  the  succeeding  episode  was 
not  revealed  until  he  started  to  speak.  We  have  thus,  independ- 
ently of  the  choral  song,  three  criteria  to  indicate  a  division: 
(1)  express  statements  by  the  actors  that  they  are  about  to 
leave  the  stage;  (2)  vacant  stage;  (3)  no  clue  given  as  to  the 
identity  of  the  oncoming  actor.  Of  these  three  criteria,  vacant 
stage  was  noticed  by  Donatus,  but  the  other  two  seem  to  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  commentators. 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


By  the  time  of  Menander  the  chorus  had  so  far  declined  in  im- 
portance that  it  no  longer  took  an  essential  part  in  the  play.  The 
Aphroditopolis  papyrus  has  shown  that  the  chorus  was  used 
solely  to  occupy,  by  some  sort  of  entertainment,  an  otherwise 
vacant  stage.    A  break  in  the  action  of  the  play  was  essential, 
and  this  break  was  filled  in  by  a  very  ordinary  sort  of  perform- 
ance,  as  that  of  the  drunken  youths  in  the  Periceiromene.    Thus 
the  difference  between  the  chorus  of  Aristophanes  and  that  of 
Menander  is  that  the  former  made  the  chorus  an  active  partici- 
pant in  the  economy  of  the  play,  while  the  latter  used  it  merely 
as  a  source  of  entertainment.    This  decline  in  importance  of  the 
chorus  is  a  significant  fact  in  connection  with  the  present  dis- 
cussion.   If  the  chorus,  in  the  space  of  a  century,  could  so  fall 
from  the  position  which  it  enjoyed  during  the  height  of  Attic 
comedy,  it  is  certainly  reasonable  to  infer  that,  when  comedy 
started  in  Rome  under  the  hand  of  Plautus,  the  chorus  ceased 
altogether  to  exist.*^    In  fact  Euanthius®  and  Donatus^  both  ex- 
press doubt  as  to  where  the  proper  places  for  the  chorus  are.    I 
believe  that  all  doubt  on  the  question  as  to  whether  Plautus  used 
a  chorus  or  not  can  be  resolved  by  the  statement  of  Donatus, 
vult  poeta  noster  amnes  quinque  actus  velut  unum  fieri.    It  is 
true  that  this  statement  is  made  concerning  Terence  but  it  is 
reasonable  to  believe  that  its  force  applies  as  well  to  Plautus. 
If  the  poet  wished  the  play  to  be  performed  with  no  intermis- 
sion between  acts,  because  the  spectators  might  think  that  the 
play  had  come  to  an  end  and  so  would  leave  the  theatre,  it  is 
not  reasonable  to  infer  the  existence  of  a  chorus,  for  a  chorus 
would  bring  about  precisely  the  ends  which  the  poet  wished  to 
avoid.    The  same  argument  applies  to  the  inference  that  there 
was  music  between  the  acts.    The  problem  now  before  us  is  to 
determine  whether  the  criteria  which  have  been  found  to  apply 
to  Aristophanes  and  Menander,  will  have  equal  force  for  Plau- 
tus. 

Of  the  criteria  mentioned,  vacant  stage  is  the  most  important, 
for  it  is  apparent  that  when  no  one  is  on  the  stage  nothing  can 
happen.  Conversely,  if  characters  remain  on  the  stage  there 
can  be  no  division,  for  the  action  must  be  regarded  as  continu- 


»  Adverse  to  this  view,  see  Plickinger.  Class.  Phil.  VII,  I.    Cf.  also  Leo.  Hermes  XLVI. 
2.  p.  292.    •Wessner,  op.  cit.  p.  18.    'Wessner,  op.  cit.  praef.  Adel.  p.  4.  praef.  And.  p.  38. 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence  7 

ous.  But  there  are  certain  difficulties  in  the  way  of  being  al- 
ways certain  that  the  stage  is  vacant  and  these  difficulties  have 
given  rise  to  mistakes  on  the  part  of  commentators.  Characters 
have  remained  on  the  stage  as  mutes  and  have  been  supposed 
not  to  be  there,  as  Budens  688-885,  where  Palaestra  and  Ampel- 
isca  stay  in  ara  and  leave  without  speaking.  Then  there  is  such 
a  question  as  arises  at  Asinaria  126 :  Libanus  announces  his  de- 
parture and  leaves  at  117 ;  Demaenetus  similarly  leaves  at  126 ; 
there  is  vacant  stage,  and  no  clue  is  given  as  to  who  will  enter. 
Should  a  division  be  indicated  so  soon  after  the  beginning  of 
the  play?  It  may  be  possible  that  there  is  a  variation  in  the 
kinds,  so  to  speak,  of  vacant  stage.  Certain  occasions  of  vacant 
stage  undeniably  indicate  divisions  in  the  play  and  other  occa- 
sions do  not ;  yet  at  all  these  points  the  stage  is  empty.  A  solu- 
tion of  this  difficulty  may  lie  in  assuming  a  different  length 
of  wait  for  these  two  classes  of  vacant  stage.  If  a  break  in  the 
action  is  demanded  because  the  plot  has  attained  a  certain  point 
in  its  development,  the  wait  will  be  just  long  enough  to  be  ap- 
parent to  the  audience.  At  these  times  we  mark  a  division 
point.  If  the  stage  appears  vacant  to  us  as  we  read,  but  no 
division  is  demanded  by  the  development  of  the  plot,  we  must 
assume  that  this  occasion  of  vacant  stage  was  almost  non-exist- 
ent in  time  because  the  oncoming  actor  closely  followed  the  out- 
going one.  It  would  not  be  justifiable  to  indicate  a  division 
point  at  these  places. 

Certain  other  considerations  will  also  assist  us  in  determining 
when  the  stage  may  properly  be  termed  vacant.  One  of  these 
considerations  is  that  the  range  of  the  third  criterion,  viz.  no 
clue  being  given  as  to  the  identity  of  the  oncoming  actor,  may 
be  expanded  to  include  that  portion  of  the  play  which  imme- 
diately precedes  the  point  at  issue.  A  good  example  of  this  point 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Trinummus.  At  614  Callicles  says,  ibo  ad 
meum  castigatorem  at  que  ah  eo  consilium  petam^  and  then  leaves 
the  stage  to  carry  out  his  announced  intention.  At  728,  the 
stage  is  apparently  empty  for  Lysiteles  has  departed  at 
716,  Stasimus  announces  his  departure  at  727,  and 
there  is  no  immediate  sign  of  entrance.  But  Callicles  enters 
with  his  castigator,  Megaronides,  and  they  converse  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  dowry  which  has  been  troubling  Callicles.    It  is  ap- 


8 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


parent  that  728  cannot  be  considered  as  a  division-point  because 
the  succeeding  subject-matter  is  closely  linked  to  that  which 
was  being  discussed  at  the  last  appearance  of  Callicles,  and  his 
remark  just  quoted  must  be  considered  as  showing  that  he  was 
about  to  re-enter  the  stage  and  so  it  is  a  clue  as  to  his  reappear- 

ance. 

A  second  consideration  may,  for  want  of  a  better  single  name, 
be  termed  insidiae.  There  are  numerous  occasions  when  an 
^ctor  retires  to  some  secret  place  on  the  stage,  in  order  that  he 
may  overhear  a  conversation.  This  device  is  also  common  in 
the  modern  drama,  as  any  one  will  recall.  Apparently  three 
places  on  the  Roman  stage  were  employed  for  this  purpose: 
angiportus,  or  alley- way  between  the  houses ;«  ara,  the  actor  either 
concealing  himself  behind  it,  or  else  grasping  it  for  protection ; 
and  ianua  or  ostium  where  he  hid  behind  a  pillar.  We  find 
conventional  phrases  which  are  used  to  indicate  such  withdrawal, 
as  co7icede  hue;  we  need  not  necessarily  believe  that  the  actor 
had  to  be  entirely  hidden,  because  the  audience  must  be  kept 
aware  of  the  fact  that  he  was  on  the  stage.  If,  then,  an  actor 
has  retired  to  the  insidiae,  the  stage  cannot  be  termed  vacant 
even  if  there  are  times  when  no  other  actor  is  in  view.  The 
whole  point  can  well  be  summed  up  by  referring  to  Miles  595. 
Here  there  is  an  undoubted  division  for  all  the  criteria  are  in 
evidence.  Then  Palaestrio  appears  and  looks  about  ne  uspiam 
insidiae  sient,  so  that  they  may  safely  converse. 

Leo^  deals  with  the  monologue  as  a  criterion  to  indicate  the 
ancient  divisions.  Monologues  may  accompany  a  division  but  a 
division-point  does  not  necessarily  exist  wherever  there  are 
monologues.  No  generalization  as  to  the  value  of  this  criterion 
can  be  made,  but  a  close  comparison  of  the  results  obtained  by 
Leo  with  those  which  are  obtained  by  the  application  of  our 
three  criteria  to  the  plays  will  show  that  the  monologue  is  not 
an  unfailing  criterion. 

It  may  now  be  profitable  to  apply  our  criteria  to  the  plays. 
For  present  purposes  the  prologues  will  be  disregarded. 

Amphitruo.  The  division-points  according  to  our  criteria 
occur  at  550,  860,  and  1052,  thus  forming  four  divisions.    Leo 


I 


8  Asin.  741. 

»  Der  Monolog  im  Drama,  pp.  49-62  for  Plautus. 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence  9 

arrived  at  practically  the  same  results  but  he  included  one  more 
section,  viz.  860-983,  thus  finding  five  divisions.  Against  this 
conclusion  is  the  statement  of  Jupiter  in  976,  Nu7ic  tu,  divine 
Sosia,  hue  fac  adsies.  This  command  serves  as  an  announcement 
of  the  entrance  of  Mercury,  and  hence  violates  the  criterion 
that  no  clue  as  to  the  identity  of  the  oncoming  actor  be  given. 
Our  divisions  correspond  with  the  acts  indicated  in  the  MSS., 
except  that  we  do  not  allow  a  division-point  at  1008  which  is 
the  end  of  Act  III.  Mercury  at  1005  announces  the  entrance 
of  Amphitruo  with  the  words  eccum  Amphitruonem ;  advemt. 
This  announcement  of  entrance  violates  the  same  criterion  as 
that  just  mentioned,  and  so  1008  cannot  be  a  division  point. 
One  might  contend  that  a  division-point  does  not  exist  at  1052 
because  Amphitruo  was  struck  by  Jupiter  just  before  leaving 
the  stage,  fell  down  apparently  dead,  and  so  vacant  stage  could 
not  be  said  really  to  exist  as  Amphitruo  was  still  in  sight.  Strict- 
ly speaking,  this  contention  would  hold,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact 
Amphitruo  was  for  the  moment  non-existent  on  account  of  the 
blow,  and,  for  dramatic  purposes,  the  stage  was  empty.  This 
occurrence  is  unique  among  the  plays  of  Plautus,  and  does  not 
come  under  the  head  of  insidiae  for  Amphitruo  was  not  feign- 
ing unconsciousness  nor  had  he  any  reason  so  to  do. 

Asinaria.  The  division  points  in  this  play  are  at  248,  503, 
544,  745,  and  827,  thus  making  six  divisions.  Leo  would  mark 
a  division  at  126,  does  not  mention  544,  and  finally  indicates  a 
division  point  at  809  rather  than  at  827.  These  variations  are 
all  worthy  of  comment.  The  question  of  the  division  point  at 
126  is  at  best  a  dubious  one,  as  was  said  above.  The  criterion 
of  no  clue  as  to  the  identity  of  the  oncoming  actor  is  of  particu- 
lar service  at  this  point.  The  difficulty  should  be  cleared  up  if 
it  can  be  shown  that  the  entrance  of  Argyrippus  has  been  an- 
nounced, for  if  it  has  been  announced  no  division-point  can  be 
made  at  126.  The  following  lines  may  be  noted:  74-5,  nam 
hodie  me  oravit  Argyrippus  filius  uti  sibi  amanti  facerem  ar gen- 
ii copiam;  116;  apud  Archihulum  ego  ero  argentarium;  126, 
maneho  apud  argentarium.  These  lines  are  all  spoken 
by  Demaenetus  and  show  clearly  that  his  purpose  in 
leaving  the  stage  is  to  secure  for  his  son  Argyrippus 
a    sum     of    money.     Argyrippus      has      not      yet      appeared 


10 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


11 


on  the  stage,  but  when  he  comes  on  at  127  he  delivers  an  indig- 
nant monologue  against  Cleareta,  whose  entrance  is  announced 
by  the  words  eccam  itUecehra  exit.  1  believe  that  the  lines  quoted 
serve  as  an  announcement  of  entrance  which  is  clear  enough  to 
forbid  a  division  at  126,  and  in  addition,  the  development  of 
the  plot  does  not  allow  a  division  point  until  248. 

Leo  would  mark  a  division  at  503  but  not  at  544.  To  be  sure, 
forty-one  lines  is  rather  a  small  number  for  a  division,  though 
not  a  prohibitively  small  number.  The  evidence  given  by  the 
criteria  must  decide  the  difficulty.  We  have  first  the  departure 
of  Philaenium  at  the  command  of  Cleareta,  intro  obi,  and  that 
she  did  depart  is  shown  by  585,  Philaenium  estne  haec  quae 
intus  exit  atque  una  Argyrippu^f  No  express  announcement  of 
the  departure  of  Cleareta  is  made,  but  she  probably  left  with 
Philaenium  as  she  does  not  appear  again  during  the  play. 
There  is  no  announcement  of  the  entrance  of  Libanus  and  Leon- 
ida  and  there  is  vacant  stage.  Leo  probably  did  not  mark  a 
division  on  account  of  the  absence  of  monologues,  but  this  is 
not  an  invariable  criterion.  The  division  is  of  importance,  be- 
cause in  it  Cleareta  forbids  Philaenium  to  have  anything  more 
to  do  with  Argyrippus.  For  these  reasons  I  indicate  a  division- 
point  at  544.  There  are  two  difficulties  connected  with  the 
question  as  to  whether  there  should  be  a  division-point  at  809 
or  at  827.  In  the  first  place,  as  Scaliger  has  noted,  the  text  is 
undoubtedly  corrupt;  secondly,  the  conversation  before  and 
after  809  is  practically  continuous.  Our  criteria  show  a  divi- 
sion at  827  and  consequently  there  can  hardly  be  one  at  809 
as  eighteen  lines  is  too  small  a  number  for  a  section.  There 
are  a  number  of  instances  where  a  break  occurs  in  the  manu- 
scripts with  the  same  characters  on  either  side  of  it.^^  Occasion- 
ally these  breaks  coincide  with  original  division  points,  but  a 
further  examination  must  be  made  before  a  general  rule  can  be 
formulated. 

AuLULARiA.  We  find  division  points  at  119,  279,  370,  586, 
and  681,  thus  making  six  divisions.  Leo  refuses  to  allow 
a  division-point  at  586  and  one  might  think  that  he  regards  370- 
807  as  one  division.    Against  his  conclusion  is  the  fact  that  all 


1 0  Aul.  78.  Bacch.  169,  385,  672,  Cist.  630.  Cure.  462,  Merc.  543,  691,  802,  Mil.  1894.  Persft  52, 
250.  PBeud.  57Sa,  Sti.  672. 


the  criteria,  together  with  monologues,  are  in  evidence  at  this 
point:  Megadorus  announces  departure  at  579,  eo  lavatum; 
Euclio  departs  at  586  with  the  words  ibo  ad  te;  there  is  vacant 
stage  and  no  clue  is  given  as  to  the  identity  of  the  oncoming 
actor. 

In  this  play  our  criteria  render  a  service  towards  the  rehabil- 
itation of  the  text.  At  363,  according  to  the  manuscripts,  Py- 
thodicus  makes  his  sole  appearance.  The  whole  scene  has  been 
carefully  discussed  by  Goetz^^  with  the  conclusion  that,  owing  to 
the  process  of  retractatio,  the  name  Strobilus  has  in  some  un- 
known manner  been  changed  to  Pythodicus.  Goetz  admits  that 
certain  solution  is  attended  with  great  difficulty.  I  believe  that 
the  name  Pythodicus  should  be  changed  to  Strobilus 
for  the  following  reasons:  Strobilus  does  not  announce  his  de- 
parture while  departure  is  provided  for  Staphyla,  Congrio,  the 
cooks,  and  others  by  the  words  of  Strobilus  in  362,  due  istos 
intro f  and  so  it  would  seem  that  Plautus  had  intended  that  Stro- 
bilus should  remain  on  the  stage ;  no  new  entrance  is  announced ; 
the  speech  in  363-70  harmonizes  with  the  words  of  Strobilus  in 
351-2;  and  finally,  with  a  division  point  at  370,  the  division 
comes  to  an  end  with  the  usual  monologue,  and  in  no  other  in- 
stance in  Plautus  is  such  a  final  monologue  spoken  by  any 
other  than  one  of  the  actors  who  has  recently  been  on  the  stage. 
The  introduction  of  a  new  character  in  such  a  situation  is  un- 
paralleled. For  these  reasons,  in  addition  to  the  other  possible 
reasons  which  are  mentioned  by  Goetz,  I  believe  that  the  speech 
in  363-70  must  be  assigned  to  Strobilus. 

Bacchides.  The  division  points  are  at  108,  367,  525,  572, 
924,  and  1075,  thus  making  seven  divisions.  Leo  includes  169, 
though  in  a  note  he  admits  some  doubt  as  to  whether  it  is  really 
a  division  point,  and  says  nothing  about  572.  It  is  true  that 
the  departure  of  both  Pistoclerus  and  Lydus  is  indicated  at  169 
by  the  words  sequere  hac  me  ac  tace,  and  that  no  clue  as  to  the 
coming  of  Chrysalus  is  given.  Our  criteria  would  seem  to  indi- 
cate a  break  were  it  not  for  the  words  of  Pistoclerus,  which 
show  that  he  saw  Chrysalus  coming  before  he  had  left  the 
stage,    and    so,    vadatum   amore,^^    he    had    remained    on    the 


'  1  praef .  Aul.  p.  VIII. 

1 '  qui  abire  bine  nuUo  pacto  poeslm,  s!  velim;  ita  xne  vadatum  amore  vinctumque  at> 
tines.  180-1. 


12 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


13 


stage  in  silence  until  Chrysalus  had  finished  his  opening  speech. 
This  is  the  second  of  the  instances  referred  to  above,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Asinariaf  and  we  may  anticipate  somewhat  so  that 
the  present  point  may  be  perfectly  clear.  At  Asinariu  809  no 
division  should  be  made  because  the  apparent  break  served  only 
to  separate  two  successive  appearances  of  the  same  characters 
whose  conversation  should  have  been  continuous.  At  Cistellaria 
630  and  at  CurcuUo  461  real  divisions  occur  which  separate 
similar  appearances  but  in  both  of  these  cases  there  are  mono- 
logues— in  the  former,  that  of  Melaenis,  in  the  latter,  that  of  the 
choragus.  In  the  Mercator  we  find  three  places,  543,  691,  802, 
where  no  real  division  exists  but  monologues  are  spoken  which 
separate  two  successive  appearances  of  the  same  character.  We 
thus  seem  to  be  justified  in  formulating  a  general  rule:  when 
we  have  two  successive  appearances  of  the  same  character  which 
are  separated  by  a  monologue  spoken  by  a  character  who  re- 
mains on  the  stage,  no  real  division-point  exists  either  imme- 
diately before  or  after  the  monologue,  unless  departure  is  ex- 
pressly announced.  This  rule  is  not  violated  at  Cistellaria  630 
because  Melaenis  leaves  the  stage. 

With  regard  to  572  Leo  states  **ohne  Pause  anzuschliessen  ist 
572.''  Notwithstanding  this  statement  our  criteria  point  to  a 
division  here.  The  departure  of  both  Pistoclerus  and  Mnesilo- 
chus  is  indicated  at  572,  there  is  vacant  stage,  and  no  clue  is 
given  as  to  the  identity  of  the  oncoming  parasite  who  opens 
with  a  monologue.  The  principle  enunciated  in  the  preceding 
paragraph  is  not  violated  here  because  the  poet  has  taken  ex- 
press care  to  show  that  Pistoclerus  had  left  the  stage. 

The  question  as  to  whether  a  division-point  exists  at  924,  as 
Leo  intimates,  presents  certain  difficulties.  Chrysalus  retires 
at  912  only  to  reappear  at  924,  when  he  begins  a  long  monologue. 
There  is  no  sign  of  departure  for  Nicobulus  and  in  978  Chry- 
salus says  sed  Priamiim  astantem  eccum  ante  portam  videOf  but 
the  question  of  Nicobulus  in  979,  quoianam  vox  prope  me  sonat? 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  he  had  just  entered  the  stage.  Our 
criteria  are  not  so  clear  at  this  point  as  they  usually  are,  but 
recourse  to  the  development  of  the  plot  shows  the  possibility  of 
a  division:  Chrysalus  merely  must  get  the  letter  from  the  son 
of  Nicobulus,  and  this  fact  accounts  for  his  short  absence;  his 


I 


monologue  in  mythological  fashion  informs  the  audience  of  the 
progress  of  his  schemes;  the  delivery  of  the  letter  to  Nicobulus 
might  well  start  a  new  division  which  would  be  opened  by  the 
monologue  of  Chrysalus.  Opposed  to  this  view  is  the  principle 
enunciated  above,  for  two  successive  appearances  of  Nicobulus 
are  separated  by  the  monologue  of  Chrysalus,  and  he  remains 
on  the  stage.  The  point  cannot  be  settled  with  absolute  certain- 
ty, but  the  probabilities  are  that  a  division-point  should  be  in- 
dicated at  924  on  account  of  the  fact  that  the  development  of 
the  plot  requires  a  division-point  here,  and  also  because  the 
general  tone  of  Chrysalus'  monologue  shows  that  he  feels  the 
necessity  of  acquainting  the  audience  with  the  progress  of  his 
schemes ;  this  fact  would  properly  open  a  new  division. 

A  division-point  might  be  imagined  at  384,  but  Lydus  prob- 
ably merely  retired  to  one  side  of  the  stage  so  as  not  to  inter- 
fere with  the  monologue  of  Mnesilochus.  There  he  met  Philox- 
enus  and  together  they  came  on  at  the  signal,  sed  eccos  video 
incedere  patrem  scdalis  et  magistrum.  One  might  postulate  a 
break  just  after  520  but  stage  cannot  be  vacant  for  Pistoclerus 
could  not  have  left  before  Mnesilochus  came  on. 

Captivi.  In  this  play  we  find  for  the  first  time  an  exact  cor- 
respondence between  the  act  divisions  as  they  appear  in  the 
manuscripts  and  the  divisions  established  by  our  criteria  at  194, 
460,  767,  921.  Leo  however  indicates  only  four  divisions,  as  he 
would  terminate  the  first  at  460.  He  makes  no  comment  on  this 
decision.  I  think  it  certain  that  a  division-point  occurs  at  194, 
as  all  the  criteria  are  in  evidence  with  the  possible  ex- 
ception of  the  monologues.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  we 
do  not  always  find  all  of  the  criteria  in  active  operation,  and 
also  that  monologues  alone  are  not  sufficient  evidence  upon 
which  to  establish  a  division-point. 

In  this  play  we  notice  certain  speeches  which  call  for  detailed 
attention,  those  at  497,  515,  and  908.  The  last  speech  has  been 
discussed  by  Prescott'^  with  the  conclusion  that  it  gives  to  Erga- 
silus,  who  has  just  spoken,  time  to  change  his  role.  Leo  says, 
**der  Monolog  des  puer  ist  neutral."  He  also  compares  the 
parasite's  monologue  in  461  and  suggests  that  the  two  mono- 
logues of  the  parasite,  like  that  of  the  choragus  in  the  Curculio, 

»«Harv.  stud.  XXI.  p.  38. 


14 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


take  the  place  of  a  XOPOY.  With  regard  to  the  present  discus- 
sion,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  three  speeches  all  show  the  pos- 
sible conclusion  that  division-points  should  be  indicated  just  be- 
fore they  severally  begin.  However  we  may  add  that,  while 
some  of  the  criteria  are  present,  we  are  not  justified  in  indicat- 
ing divisions  for  these  speeches  are  explanatory  of  action  which 
has  occurred  off  the  stage,  and  hence  division-points  cannot  be 
said  to  exist  at  these  places.  The  question  as  to  possible  changes 
of  role  does  not  lie  within  the  compass  of  this  paper. 

Casina.  In  this  play  the  division  points  are  at  143,  514,  758, 
and  954,  with  exact  correspondence  to  the  tradition  act-divi- 
sions, and  also  to  those  marked  by  Leo. 

CiSTELLARiA.     This  play  cannot  be  satisfactorily  discussed  on 
account  of  the  existence  of  numerous  lacunae  and  fragments. 
The  division-points  are  at  148,  202,  630,  and  652.    Leo  intimates 
that  there  may  be  a  division-point  at  304,  but  I  believe  that 
this  possibility  ought  to  be  ignored  because  the  following  frag- 
ments render  it  too  difficult  a  matter  to  decide.    The  speech  of 
Auxilium,  148-202,  presents  a  situation  which  has  not  been  en- 
countered thus  far.     It  is  really  the  prologue  to  the  play,  and 
yet  it  does  not  come  at  the  beginning.    We  have  been  disregard- 
ing the  vacant  stage  which  usually  exists  at  the  end  of  the  pro- 
logue, and  for  that  reason  we  have  one  division-point  here  (148) 
that  really  ought  not  to  be  counted,  but  we  are  forced  to  allow 
it  because  the  prologue  is  not  in  its  usual  place  and  we  have  no 
means,  except  violent  transposition,  of  restoring  it.     At  630  a 
situation  occurs  similar  to  that  of  Asijiaria  809,  namely     that 
the  same  character  speaks  both  before  and  after  the  break.    In 
all  probability  the  break  was  very  short,  as  is  indicated  by  the 
words  rem  elocuta  sum  tihi  omnemy  and  just  enough  time  was 
allowed  for  Melaenis  to  disappear  and  to  reappear  with  Sele- 
nium.    With  regard  to  652  Leo  states,  '*652  kann  unmittelbar 
anschliessen.'*    But  this  is  not  the  case,  for  all  of  our  criteria, 
with  the  single  exception  of  the  monologue,  show  a  division- 
point  at  this  place.    The  departure  of  Alcesimarchus  with  Sele- 
nium  is  shown  by  the  words  dbiit,  apstulit  mulierem,  and  the  de- 
parture of  Melaenis  by  the  words  iho,  persequar  tarn  ilium  intro; 
there  is  vacant  stage ;  and  no  clue  is  given  as  to  the  identity  of 
the  oncoming  actors.    The  absence  of  monologues  is  not  a  suffi- 


DivisiONs  IN  Plautus  and  Terence 


15 


cient  reason  why  a  division  point  should  not  be  indicated  at 
this  place.  One  might  imagine  a  division  point  at  773,  but  this 
cannot  be,  for  Lampadio  did  not  leave  the  stage  before  Demipho 
appeared. 

CuRCULio.  The  divisions  of  this  play  correspond  exactly  with 
the  traditional  act-divisions  and  are  215,  370,  461,  and  590. 
Leo  however  does  not  allow  a  division-point  at  590.  All  of  our 
criteria  indicate  it  for  Cappadox  departs  at  588  and  Therapon- 
tigonus  at  590 ;  there  is  vacant  stage ;  no  clue  as  to  the  identity 
of  the  oncoming  Curculio  is  given;  and  in  addition  we  find 
short  monologues  both  before  and  after  the  break.  The  speech 
of  the  choragus,  462-86,  has  aroused  some  comment.  Leo  calls 
it  a  **richtiges  Intermezzo''  and  it  might  be  taken  as  giving  an 
opportunity  for  change  of  role.^*  For  our  purposes,  however,  it 
may  be  considered  as  serving  the  same  end  as  the  other  speeches 
mentioned  in  connection  with  Asinariu  809,  viz.  to  separate  two 
successive  appearances  of  the  same  set  of  actors.  The  exist- 
ence of  such  speeches  as  these  strengthens  our  hypothesis  that 
Plautus  used  no  chorus  because  these  speeches  admirably  fill  in 
an  otherwise  awkward  pause.  Furthermore,  they  show  that  the 
play  was  to  be  presented  as  a  fairly  continuous  whole,  because 
such  pains  are  taken  to  occupy  the  stage  during  a  wait  caused 
by  the  disappearance  and  reappearance  of  the  same  set  of 
actors. 

Epidicus.  Division-points  exist  at  165,  319,  381,  and  606. 
Leo  has  the  same  results.  It  might  appear  at  first  sight  that 
there  is  a  division -point  at  525  but  Periphanes  remains  on  the 
stage  as  is  indicated  by  the  word  peregre  of  533.  There  is  a 
possibility  also  at  665,  because  Epidicus  announces  his  depar- 
ture, aheo  intro,  and  we  have  no  clue  as  to  who  will  next  ap- 
pear. Leo  states  that  no  division  point  is  to  be  found  here  and 
I  am  inclined  to  agree  because  there  is  no  monologue  at  the  en- 
trance of  Periphanes  and  Apoecides,  and  the  general  tone  of 
Epidicus'  remarks,  675-8,  does  not  indicate  that  he  had  just 
entered  the  stage. 

Menaechmi.  We  find  division-points  at  225,  445,  558,  700, 
and  965.  Leo  says,  **fiinf,  nicht  sechs  oder  sieben,  denn  sowohl 
V.  558  als  1049  geht  das  Spiel  weiter;"  in  other  words,  neither 

*  *  cf.  Prescott,  op.  cit.  p.  26,  d.  3. 


16 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


558  nor  1049  are  division-points.  1049  is  certainly  a  division- 
point  for  the  statement  of  Messenio  in  1038,  hie  me  nmne,  is 
equivalent  to  an  announcement  of  entrance  and  hence  there  is 
no  break  at  1049.  With  regard  to  558  I  am  also  unable  to  agree 
with  Leo.  The  ancilla  departs  at  548  as  is  shown  by  the  words 
of  Menaechmus  II  in  550/''  and  he  himself  departs  at  558.  No 
clue  is  given  as  to  the  identity  of  the  oncoming  actors,  and  the 
stage  is  vacant.  In  addition  to  these  reasons  there  is  a  mono- 
logue to  close  the  division  and  the  plot  demands  a  break  at  this 

place. 

The  new  divisions  correspond  with  the  traditional  acts  ex- 
cept that  we  indicate  a  break  at  965.  This  break  is  demanded 
by  the  announced  departure  of  the  three  characters,  vacant 
stage,  no  clue  as  to  the  identity  of  the  oncoming  Messenio,  and 
the  monologue  by  Menaechmus  which  closes  the  division  and 
the  one  by  Messenio  which  opens  the  next  division ;  the  develop- 
ment of  the  plot  also  necessitates  this  break,  for,  after  the  de- 
parture of  the  old  man  and  the  doctor,  the  seizure  of  Menaech- 
mus and  his  rescue  by  Messenio  fittingly  begin  the  scene  intro- 
ductory to  the  recognition  of  the  two  Menaechmi. 

Mercator.  Our  division-points  occur  at  224,  498,  587,  666, 
and  829,  and  the  same  results  are  found  by  Leo.  He  puts  to- 
gether 543,  691,  and  802  with  the  intimation  that  they  do  not 
mark  divisions,  but  he  adduces  no  proof  for  his  statement.  In 
the  absence  of  his  proof  it  may  be  well  to  examine  the  three 
places.  At  543  Demipho  begins  a  monologue  which  separates 
the  two  appearances  of  Lysimachus;  at  691  Lysimachus  has  a 
monologue  which  separates  the  appearances  of  Dorippa;  at  789 
Lysimachus'  monologue  performs  the  same  service  for  Syra. 
We  have  already  anticipated  the  treatment  of  this  point  in 
connection  with  the  Bacchides.  Suffice  it  to  say  here  that  the 
first  character  leaves  the  stage  to  fulfill  his  part  in  the  economy 
of  the  play,  and  the  monologue  is  spoken  in  order  to  fill  up  the 
pause  which  would  otherwise  result. 

Miles  Gloriosus.  Our  division  points  occur  at  78,  595,  946, 
and  1393,  in  correspondence  with  the  traditional  act-divisions. 
Leo  indicates  but  three  parts  "nach  dem  Vorspiel,  Einschnitte 
sind  595  und  946  (nicht  1394).''    Presumably  he  would  mark 


» *  abiit,  operuit  fores. 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


17 


a  division  at  78,  since  the  speech  of  Palaestrio  which  follows 
is  really  the  prologue  as  is  the  speech  of  Auxilium  in  the  Cistel- 
laria.  The  few  lines  just  preceding  1394  (1378-93)  have  been 
discussed  by  Prescott^**  with  the  conclusion  that  the  puer  speech 
was  written  for  the  purpose  of  allowing  the  miles  to  retire  into 
his  house  preparatory  to  his  reappearance  in  the  next  division. 
This  in  itself  is  proof  enough  that  a  division-point  exists  at  1393, 
for  there  the  puer  departs.  We  may  recall  the  principle  enun- 
ciated in  connection  with  the  Bacchides.  Since  the  puer  speech 
separates  the  two  appearances  of  Pyrgopolinices  and  the  puer 
then  leaves  the  stage,  we  appear  to  be  justified  in  claiming  a 
division-point  at  1393.  Leo  gives  no  reason  why  he  refuses  a 
division  here,  but  possibly  he  regarded  the  matter  included  in 
946-1347  as  an  unbroken  whole  as  he  indicates.^^ 

Mostellaria.  This  play  brings  us  face  to  face  with  a  new 
situation.  According  to  our  criteria  the  play  has  only  three 
divisions  with  division-points  at  858  and  1040.  This  makes  a 
first  division  which  is  out  of  proportion  to  the  other  two  sec- 
tions, or  to  any  other  division  which  we  have  had  thus  far.  Lea 
admits  this  same  division  of  the  play  according  to  the  criterion 
of  vacant  stage,  but  he  would  find  *  *  Aktschliisse "  at  both  347 
and  at  431,  and  he  says  ''Das  Stiick  hat  wirklich  5  Akte."  He 
then  adds  that  Tranio's  function  caused  him  to  remain  on  the 
stage  '*bis  zum  volligen  Gelingen"  as  did  Medea  and  Hecuba  in 
the  plays  of  Euripides.  I  think  that  this  contention  of  Leo's 
vitiates  his  theory  of  division  making.  He  admits  certain  di- 
visions where  the  stage  is  vacant  and  then  proceeds  to  postulate 
two  division-points  at  which  the  stage  under  no  conceivable  cir- 
cumstances can  be  vacant,  for  at  347  three  persons  remain  on  the 
stage,  and  at  431  Tranio  retires  to  the  insidiae.  It  would  un- 
deniably be  convenient,  from  the  modern  point  of  view,  to  have 
these  five  divisions  but  they  do  not  exist  in  the  play.  Appar- 
ently Plautus  did  not  intend  to  have  any  division-point  until 
858,  because  he  purposely  kept  Tranio  on  the  stage  until  his 
machinations  were  concluded,  and  not  until  then  was  he  allow- 
ed to  leave.  The  contention  of  Leo  proves  that  he  does  not  re- 
gard vacant  stage  as  necessary  and  indispensable  for  a  division- 


^«  op.  cit,  p.  34  ff. 

^ '  Plaut.  Forsch.  p.  161.    Cf.  Preseott.  loc.  cit.  n.  1. 


18 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


point.     This  is  not  a  tenable  position  for  how  can  there  be  a 
break  in  the  action  when  persons  remain  on  the  stage? 

Persa.  The  division-points  are  167,  250,  328,  399,  752.  Leo 
has  the  same  results  but  adds  52.  This  cannot  be  a  division- 
point,  as  may  be  shown  by  comparison  with  Mercator  543,  691, 
and  802  at  which  points  Leo  does  not  allow  breaks.  The  cases 
are  identical  as  in  all  four  we  find  monologues  which  separate 
successive  appearances  of  the  same  actor.  In  this  case  the  mon- 
ologue of  Saturio  separates  two  successive  appearances  of  Toxi- 
lus.  If  Leo  did  not  allow  divisions  in  the  Mercator,  he  should 
not  mark  one  here. 

PoENULUS.  There  is  little  to  say  concerning  this  play  as  the 
new  divisions  correspond  both  with  the  traditional  act-divisions 
and  also  with  those  established  by  Leo. 

PsEUDOLUS.  The  division-points  are  573a,  766,  904,  1051, 
and  1245.  The  same  results  are  given  by  Leo.  These  divisions 
correspond  with  the  traditional  act-divisions  with  one  exception, 
viz.  that  Act  IV  must  be  divided  at  1051.  All  of  our  criteria 
indicate  a  division  at  this  point,  and  in  addition  a  break  is  de- 
manded by  the  development  of  the  plot,  for,  by  the  departure 
of  Simia  and  Pseudolus,  opportunity  is  given  for  the  develop- 
ment of  the  schemes  of  Simo  and  Ballio. 

The  division-point  at  573a  has  given  rise  to  endless  comment, 
for  this  is  one  of  the  few  places  where  a  hint  is  given  as  to  the 
occupancy  of  vacant  stage.  As  this  subject  is  foreign  to  the 
present  investigation,  I  will  not  touch  on  it  further  than  to 
say  that,  as  in  Cistellaria  630,  a  break  must  exist  in  order  to 
furnish  time  for  the  departure  and  reappearance  of  Pseudolus. 
The  remark  of  Pseudolus,  interea  vos  tihicen  hie  delectaverit, 
is  doubtless  a  joke,  and  he  takes  the  audience  into  his  confidence 
as  Aristophanes  does  often. 

RuDENS.  This  play  is  particularly  interesting  from  the  pres- 
ent view-point  as  it  affords  considerable  opportunity  for  nice 
work  in  the  discrimination  of  vacant  stage.  Our  criteria  point 
to  divisions  at  289,  592,  891,  1190,  and  1280,  thus  making  six 
divisions.  Leo  finds  seven  as  he  adds  a  division-point  at  184. 
I  cannot  concur  in  this  for  the  entrance  of  Palaestra  is  demand- 
ed by  the  previous  conversation  which  reported  the  shipwreck, 
and  in  addition  the  words  errahit  illaec  hodie  of  177  practically 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


19 


announce  her  entrance.  As  the  criterion  of  announcement  of 
entrance  was  not  observed  by  Leo  he  marked  a  division-point  at 
184.  Possibly  vacant  stage  occurs  at  457  but  here  again  there 
is  practical  announcement  of  entrance,  for  Sceparnio  is  bring- 
ing the  water  which  Ampelisca  sent  him  to  fetch.  At  484  we 
find  another  opportunity  for  vacant  stage  but  in  442  we  find 
the  words  sed  quid  ego  misera  video  procul  in  lit  ore  f  meum 
erum  lenonem  SicUiensemque  hospitem.  The  monologue  of 
Sceparnio  serves  to  fill  in  the  time  which  the  leno  and  the  hospes 
consume  in  coming  from  procul  to  the  stage. 

A  very  interesting  point  is  introduced  at  688  by  the  words 
of  Trachalio  addressed  to  Palaestra  and  Ampelisca,  adsidite  hie 
in  ara^  and  the  question  is,  when  did  the  girls  leave  the  ara,  and 
the  stage?  As  noted  above,  the  scene-headings  are  useless  for 
they  do  not  mention  the  girls,  since  the  girls  are  mutes.  They 
are  on  the  stage  at  707,  and  we  find  scattering  references  to 
them  as  far  as  882.  Possibly  they  leave  at  885,  when  Plesidip- 
pus  takes  away  Labrax,  though  no  sign  of  their  departure  is 
given.  This  theory  is  rendered  tenable  by  the  words  of  the 
Lorarius^®  and  by  those  of  Daemones.^^ 

There  is  apparent  vacant  stage  at  906  as  Daemones  has  spok- 
en a  monologue  and  announces  his  departure  without  giving 
clue  as  to  the  identity  of  the  oncoming  actor,  unless  his  words 
sed  Gripus  servus  noster  quid  rerum  gerat  miror  are  intended 
as  such  a  clue.  Since  Gripus  enters  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
monologue  it  is  probable  that  Plautus  meant  that  the  words 
quoted  above  should  serve  as  announcement  of  his  entrance, 
for  the  development  of  the  plot  does  not  demand  a  division- 
point  here.  The  stage  is  also  apparently  vacant  at  1264  for  both 
Daemones  and  Gripus  depart,  but  the  words  of  Daemones  to 
Trachalio  in  1223,  recipe  te  hue  rusum,  serve  as  the  announce- 
ment of  the  entrance  of  Trachalio  and  hence  there  can  be  no 
real  vacant  stage. 

Stichus.  The  division  points  are  at  154,  401,  504,  640,  and 
672,  thus  making  six  divisions.  Leo  marks  but  four  divisions, 
omitting  154  and  672,  but  otherwise  having  the  same  division- 
points.     I  mark  a  division  at  154  because  I  do  not  think  that 

*•  879-80,  suadeo  ut  ad  nos  abeant  potius,  dum  recipis. 
to\h^^^^'  ^^^'^  ^^  signifies  that  his  wife  has  seen  the  girls,  and  so  they  must  have  gone 


20 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


21 


the  command  of  Panegyris^^  is  a  sufficient  sign  of  entrance. 
Gelasimus  comes  on  unannounced  and  is  discovered  by  Crocotium 
as  is  shown  by  her  statement."  At  672  we  find  another  instance 
of  the  principle  which  we  enunciated  in  the  discussion  of  the 
Bacchides.  Sangarinus  and  Stichus  have  two  successive  appear- 
ances  which  are  separated  by  the  monologue  of  Stephanium.  She 
does  not  remain  on  the  stage,  and  hence  I  mark  a  division  just 
before  the  beginning  of  her  monologue. 

Trinummus.  The  divisions  of  this  play  coincide  exactly  with 
the  traditional  act-divisions  and  with  the  divisions  marked  by 
Leo,  with  but  one  exception  and  that  is  728,  which  is  added  by 
Leo!  This  at  first  appears  to  be  a  division-point  for  all  the 
criteria  are  apparently  in  evidence,  but  closer  examination  shows 
that  the  entrance  of  Callicles  and  Megaronides  was  announced 
at  614.  Stasimus  remains  on  the  stage  to  meet  Lysiteles  and 
Lesbonicus  and,  after  the  departure  of  the  three,  Callicles  and 
Megaronides  return.     Therefore  no  division-point  can  occur  at 

728. 

Truculentus.     The  division-points  occur  at  447,   644,   698, 

making  four  divisions.    Leo  obtains  the  same  results. 

Vidularia.     This  play  is  too  fragmentary  for  discussion. 

II 

The  application  of  the  criteria  to  the  plays  of  Terence  may 
now  be  of  interest,  as  his  comedies  were  composed  under  con- 
ditions quite  similar  to  those  which  influenced  Plautus.  The 
most  recent  articles  which  deal  with  the  divisions  in  the  plays 
of  Terence  are  Leo,  Der  Monolog;  Keym,  De  Fahulis  Terenti 
in  Actus  Dividendis  (Giessen,  1911);  Flickinger,  XOPOY  in 
Terence's  II canton  {Classical  Philologij,  VII,  p.  24  ff.)  ;  and 
Skutsch,  XOPOY  hei  Terenz,  Hermes  47.  p.  141  ff. 

The  traditional  division  of  the  plays  of  Terence  into  five  acts 
each  has  been  rejected  w^ith  good  reason  by  commentators,  and 
both  Leo  and  Keym  have  endeavored  to  locate  the  original  divi- 
sions. Leo  divided  the  plays  using  the  same  criterion  which  he 
had  used  for  Plautus,  and  Keym  concluded  that  the  plays 
should  be  divided  into  three  acts  each.    My  discussion  of  Plautus 


•  OGelasimum  hue  arcessito. 
«i  hie  illest  parasitus. 


showed  that  the  occurrence  of  the  monologue  was  not  an  unfail- 
ing criterion,  and  the  arguments  there  adduced  have  equal 
weight  with  regard  to  Leo's  division  of  the  plays  of  Terence. 
Keym's  thesis  has  already  been  reviewed  by  Flickinger^  who 
showed  that  the  tripartite  division  made  by  Keym  was  not 
tenable.  The  field  is  therefore  open  for  a  new  attempt  to  find 
the  original  divisions  in  the  plays  of  Terence.  For  the  sake 
of  uniformity  and  convenience,  I  shall  use  the  numbering  of  the 
lines  which  is  given  in  the  edition  of  Tyrrell. 

Andria.  This  play  has  but  two  parts  and  the  division-point  is 
just  after  819,  coincident  with  the  beginning  of  Act  V.  Leo 
would  divide  the  play  at  227,  300  (possibly),  and  625.  A  brief 
examination  wull  show  that  there  can  be  no  division-point  at  any 
of  these  places.  At  226  Davos  says,  sed  My  sis  ah  ea  egreditur, 
and  hence  no  division-point  can  occur  here  as  the  entrance  of 
the  oncoming  actor  is  announced.  The  same  contention  holds 
true  of  both  300  and  625,  as  in  both  of  these  cases  Pamphilus 
remains  on  the  stage,  and  so  the  stage  cannot  be  said  to  be 
vacant.  Keym's  division  into  three  acts  is  as  follows:  1-300, 
301-819,  820-981.  It  has  just  been  shown  that  300  cannot  be 
a  division  point  and  so  the  three  act  division  for  this  play  falls 
to  the  ground. 

IIeauton  Timoroumenos.  This  play  has  five  division-points 
at  170,  409,  873,  and  1002.  Flickinger  originally  announced  the 
break  at  170.^  409  is  coincident  with  the  ending  of  Act  II  and 
872  with  that  of  Act  IV.  Leo  divides  the  play  at  229,  409,  748, 
and  873.  229  cannot  be  a  division-point  as  the  stage  is  not 
vacant  for  Clitipho  does  not  leave;  the  same  is  true  of  748  as 
Syrus  remains  on  the  stage  aside.  Keym's  divisions  are  1-409, 
410-872,  873-1067;  he  passes  over  170  and  so  his  first  division  is 
really  the  sum  of  two  divisions;  he  also  passes  over  1002,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  a  division  point  as  all  the 
criteria  are  in  evidence. 

Eunuchus.  The  division-points  according  to  our  criteria  are 
206,  538,  614,  and  816,  thus  making  five  divisions.  Leo  finds 
but  two  **Einschnitte/'  538  and  615,  which  are  correct,  but  he 
does  not  notice  the  other  two.  Keym's  divisions  are  1-390,  391- 
816,   817-1094,   his  argument  being  wholly  derived  from   the 

»Class.Phll.VII.  p.  499. 
*  op.  cit. 


22 


Divisions  in  Plautus  and  Terence 


development  of  the  plot.    A  division-point  cannot  occur  at  390 
for  Parmeno  remains  on  the  stage. 

Phormio.  There  are  four  divisions  with  division-points  at  152, 
566,  and  819.  Leo's  division-points  are  152,  314,  566,  and  765. 
314  cannot  be  a  division-point  as  Geta  remains  on  the  stage.  At 
762  the  entrance  of  Demipho  is  announced  in  the  words  pater 
adulescentis  venit,  and  so  765  cannot  be  a  division-point.  Keym's 
divisions  are  1-314,  315-566,  567-1055.  Keym's  argument, 
aliquantum  temporis  intercedere  oportet,  is  not  valid  with  regard 

to  314. 

Hecyra.  This  play  has  six  divisions  with  division-points  at 
197,  280,  515,  576,  and  798.  Leo  has  five  '' Einschnitte,''  122,  280, 
515,  576,  and  798,  which  agree  with  the  divisions  established  by 
our'  own  criteria,  the  first  alone  excepted,  and  122  must  be  a 
typographical  error  for  197.  Keym's  divisions  are  1-280,  281- 
576,  577-880.  His  first  division  is  again  the  sum  of  two  divisions, 
for  197  is  certainly  a  division-point. 

Adelphoe.  This  play  contains  eight  divisions  with  division- 
points  at  154,  287,  354,  516,  591,  712,  and  786.  Leo  divides  the 
play  at  154,  287,  516,  712,  and  854.  Barring  certain  omissions, 
the  only  difference  between  Leo's  divisions  and  those  established 
by  our  criteria  is  that  he  passes  over  786  and  includes  854 ;  this 
cannot  be  a  division-point  as  Demea  remains  on  the  stage. 
Keym's  divisions  are  1-287,  288-712,  713-997.  It  is  true  that 
these  divisions  all  end  at  correct  division-points,  but  Keym 
passes  over  division-points  which  are  apparently  certain  m  his 
endeavor  to  force  the  play  into  a  tripartite  division. 


